In “Sex in Mind and in Education: A Reply,” Elizabeth Garrett Anderson refutes the points made by physician Henry Maudsley in his 1865 article “Sex in Mind and in Education”. In his article, Maudsley argues that men and women should not receive the same or similar educations, due to “the demands which [the female body’s] special functions make upon its strength” (197). The “special functions” to which Maudsley, and later Garrett Anderson as well, refers to are the reproductive capacities of most female bodies, specifically menstruation. While this is a comical concept to most modern audiences, it was considered by many of Maudsley’s contemporaries to be a scientific fact (Purvis 3). Women’s education, or lack thereof, was a topic of significance in Victorian England. According to June Purvis, “the content of education for middle-class girls tended to stress ornamental knowledge that might attract and impress a suitor” (64), while boys of the same class were taught things like Latin and Greek, philosophy and mathematics. This was justified by the societal roles fulfilled by segregation of the sexes; men were to grow up to be doctors and lawyers and intellectuals, while women were brought up to be wives and mothers. Maudsley’s position that education should be divided based on gender was supported by writers of both genders (Purvis 45), such as Elizabeth Sewell and James Davies, who cited “nature” as the basis for this judgement. However, there were also critics of this educational status quo, whose voices refused to go unheard. The volume of dissenting voices grew significantly between the 1840s and 1850s, becoming a somewhat cohesive educational reform movement (Purvis 73). Their arguments were grounded on the fact that “education ought to aim at developing faculties” (Purvis 73) regardless of one’s anatomy. Emily Davies, a close friend of Garrett Anderson and fellow activist, argued that men “justify wearing themselves out so long as women can be kept ‘in a state of wholesome rust’” (Purvis 73).
Elizabeth Garrett Anderson, the first female doctor in England and a dedicated advocate for women’s rights to education, echoes Davies’ sentiment in her critique of the rationale behind Maudsley’s beliefs. She points to the flawed argument made by Maudsley that “the physiological functions started in girls between the ages of fourteen and sixteen are likely to be interfered with or interrupted by pursuing the same course of study as boys” (201), arguing that while the physical differences between men and women are important in many ways, they do not factor in the ability to be educated. According to Garrett Anderson, the argument that a woman’s successful menstruation would necessarily strike her as unfit to compete with a man contains a glaring logical leap. She refers to the nature and the pace of the competition as the source of the question of educational aptitude, not the similarities and differences between the sexes (201). Garrett Anderson also takes issue with the fact that Maudsley assumes that the purpose of educating women is to transform women into men. She asks “what ground Dr. Maudsley can conceive that he has for [this assumption]” (200) and critiques his repeated use of vague language. She refutes Maudsley’s claim by saying that “the single aim of those anxious to promote a higher and more serious education for women is to make the best they can of the materials at their disposal” (200). She asks for evidence that it has ever been implied by any person working towards women’s educational reform that the goal of their work is to dispose of all of their femininity and become male. By writing in a distanced, eloquently logical manner, Elizabeth Garrett Anderson is decidedly successful in conveying her argument in a persuasive manner. She remains close enough to the material, as a woman who has received an education despite the enormous adversities and barriers set in her path, that there is an underlying passion beneath the words that somewhat betrays the disinterested tone Garrett Anderson attempts to mimic. She writes in a manner that echoes the sophistication and care of many of the male writers of her time and eschews much of what was considered to be a feminine style of writing. She does not address the reader, she does not attempt to appeal to emotion nor does she include anecdotal evidence to allure the reader. She writes on a theoretical, professional level equal to and possibly surpassing that of Maudsley. By pointing to the flaws in Maudsley’s arguments, Garrett Anderson proves her own ability to think rationally and to articulate those thoughts into an organized argument. She does, however, employ a certain biting wit throughout the article, with phrases like “if [women] fail, it assuredly will not be from thinking that the masculine type of excellence includes all that can be desired in humanity” (200).
Garrett Anderson’s reply to “Sex in Mind and in Education” was published in the Fortnightly Review in 1874, the same magazine and year in which Maudsley’s article was published. The Fortnightly Review was at that time helmed by a man called John Morley, who pushed the magazine from an intentionally unbiased middle position in terms of content to a much more liberal position during his time as editor (Turner 76). Despite going against the original idealism of the magazine, Morley’s vision was very popular, with steadily growing sales (Turner 76). This suggests that Garrett Anderson’s reply would be relatively widely read and supported, based on the apparent liberal slant of much of the content during that time.
I am curious as to what the other responses to Maudsley’s “Sex in Mind and in Education” had to say about his arguments, and whether there was any rebuttal of the claims made by Garrett Anderson. RH/Engl387/Fall2014/UVic
Works Cited Garrett Anderson, Elizabeth. “Sex in Mind and in Education: A Reply” The Broadview Anthology of Victorian Prose 1832-1901. Ed. Mary Elizabeth Leighton and Lisa Anne Surridge. Peterborough, Ont.: Broadview, 2012. 200-03. Print.
Maudsley, Henry. “Sex in Mind and in Education.” The Broadview Anthology of Victorian Prose 1832-1901. Ed. Mary Elizabeth Leighton and Lisa Surridge. Peterborough, Ont.: Broadview, 2012. 197-99. Print.
Purvis, June. A History of Women's Education in England. Milton Keynes: Open UP, 1991. Print.
Turner, Mark. “Hybrid Journalism: Women and the progressive Fortnightly.”Journalism, Literature and Modernity: From Hazlitt to Modernism. Ed. Kate Campbell. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2000. 72–90. Print.
In “Sex in Mind and in Education: A Reply,” Elizabeth Garrett Anderson refutes the points made by physician Henry Maudsley in his 1865 article “Sex in Mind and in Education”. In his article, Maudsley argues that men and women should not receive the same or similar educations, due to “the demands which [the female body’s] special functions make upon its strength” (197). The “special functions” to which Maudsley, and later Garrett Anderson as well, refers to are the reproductive capacities of most female bodies, specifically menstruation. While this is a comical concept to most modern audiences, it was considered by many of Maudsley’s contemporaries to be a scientific fact (Purvis 3). Women’s education, or lack thereof, was a topic of significance in Victorian England. According to June Purvis, “the content of education for middle-class girls tended to stress ornamental knowledge that might attract and impress a suitor” (64), while boys of the same class were taught things like Latin and Greek, philosophy and mathematics. This was justified by the societal roles fulfilled by segregation of the sexes; men were to grow up to be doctors and lawyers and intellectuals, while women were brought up to be wives and mothers. Maudsley’s position that education should be divided based on gender was supported by writers of both genders (Purvis 45), such as Elizabeth Sewell and James Davies, who cited “nature” as the basis for this judgement. However, there were also critics of this educational status quo, whose voices refused to go unheard. The volume of dissenting voices grew significantly between the 1840s and 1850s, becoming a somewhat cohesive educational reform movement (Purvis 73). Their arguments were grounded on the fact that “education ought to aim at developing faculties” (Purvis 73) regardless of one’s anatomy. Emily Davies, a close friend of Garrett Anderson and fellow activist, argued that men “justify wearing themselves out so long as women can be kept ‘in a state of wholesome rust’” (Purvis 73).
Elizabeth Garrett Anderson, the first female doctor in England and a dedicated advocate for women’s rights to education, echoes Davies’ sentiment in her critique of the rationale behind Maudsley’s beliefs. She points to the flawed argument made by Maudsley that “the physiological functions started in girls between the ages of fourteen and sixteen are likely to be interfered with or interrupted by pursuing the same course of study as boys” (201), arguing that while the physical differences between men and women are important in many ways, they do not factor in the ability to be educated. According to Garrett Anderson, the argument that a woman’s successful menstruation would necessarily strike her as unfit to compete with a man contains a glaring logical leap. She refers to the nature and the pace of the competition as the source of the question of educational aptitude, not the similarities and differences between the sexes (201).
Garrett Anderson also takes issue with the fact that Maudsley assumes that the purpose of educating women is to transform women into men. She asks “what ground Dr. Maudsley can conceive that he has for [this assumption]” (200) and critiques his repeated use of vague language. She refutes Maudsley’s claim by saying that “the single aim of those anxious to promote a higher and more serious education for women is to make the best they can of the materials at their disposal” (200). She asks for evidence that it has ever been implied by any person working towards women’s educational reform that the goal of their work is to dispose of all of their femininity and become male.
By writing in a distanced, eloquently logical manner, Elizabeth Garrett Anderson is decidedly successful in conveying her argument in a persuasive manner. She remains close enough to the material, as a woman who has received an education despite the enormous adversities and barriers set in her path, that there is an underlying passion beneath the words that somewhat betrays the disinterested tone Garrett Anderson attempts to mimic. She writes in a manner that echoes the sophistication and care of many of the male writers of her time and eschews much of what was considered to be a feminine style of writing. She does not address the reader, she does not attempt to appeal to emotion nor does she include anecdotal evidence to allure the reader. She writes on a theoretical, professional level equal to and possibly surpassing that of Maudsley. By pointing to the flaws in Maudsley’s arguments, Garrett Anderson proves her own ability to think rationally and to articulate those thoughts into an organized argument. She does, however, employ a certain biting wit throughout the article, with phrases like “if [women] fail, it assuredly will not be from thinking that the masculine type of excellence includes all that can be desired in humanity” (200).
Garrett Anderson’s reply to “Sex in Mind and in Education” was published in the Fortnightly Review in 1874, the same magazine and year in which Maudsley’s article was published. The Fortnightly Review was at that time helmed by a man called John Morley, who pushed the magazine from an intentionally unbiased middle position in terms of content to a much more liberal position during his time as editor (Turner 76). Despite going against the original idealism of the magazine, Morley’s vision was very popular, with steadily growing sales (Turner 76). This suggests that Garrett Anderson’s reply would be relatively widely read and supported, based on the apparent liberal slant of much of the content during that time.
I am curious as to what the other responses to Maudsley’s “Sex in Mind and in Education” had to say about his arguments, and whether there was any rebuttal of the claims made by Garrett Anderson.
RH/Engl387/Fall2014/UVic
Works Cited
Garrett Anderson, Elizabeth. “Sex in Mind and in Education: A Reply” The Broadview Anthology of Victorian Prose 1832-1901. Ed. Mary Elizabeth Leighton and Lisa Anne Surridge. Peterborough, Ont.: Broadview, 2012. 200-03. Print.
Maudsley, Henry. “Sex in Mind and in Education.” The Broadview Anthology of Victorian Prose 1832-1901. Ed. Mary Elizabeth Leighton and Lisa Surridge. Peterborough, Ont.: Broadview, 2012. 197-99. Print.
Purvis, June. A History of Women's Education in England. Milton Keynes: Open UP, 1991. Print.
Turner, Mark. “Hybrid Journalism: Women and the progressive Fortnightly.” Journalism, Literature and Modernity: From Hazlitt to Modernism. Ed. Kate Campbell. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2000. 72–90. Print.